The Occupy movement is a non violent protest. As regards the Oakland incident, there is some question as to whether the violent rioters were agent provocateurs as have been used in other demonstrations.

The Occupy movement is a non violent protest. As regards the Oakland incident, there is some question as to whether the violent rioters were agent provocateurs as have been used in other demonstrations.

Oh, I guess these wall street types just want to be able to claim Oakland when it is in their interest and disclaim the people in Oakland when it is in their interest.

I see that a lot of the Occupy groups have sent people to Oakland to try and put a lid on the core group of anarchists who saw Occupy as a way to do their thing and claimed the Occupy banner as a way to do their destruction. By now real Occupy people may out number the anarchists, but they haven't got rid of the anarchists and I don't think they can, considering it is Oakland.

The Occupy movement is a non violent protest. As regards the Oakland incident, there is some question as to whether the violent rioters were agent provocateurs as have been used in other demonstrations.

I wish people would stop bandying the word "anarchist" around as if they know what it means. They clearly don't.

The Tea Partiers are libertarians. Libertarianism is a form of anarchism.

The 99% movement has anarchism at it's core.

Anarchism is NOT smashing up stores and banks.

Anarchism is a form of organising society that quite literally means "without rulers". In other words they do not believe that one person or a small group of people should be in charge. There are many different forms of anarchism. The libertarians and a large part of the Republican party believes there should be no or little government. This is a form of anarchism.

The 99% work on the principle that everyone has a say in how things are run. That is why they have the general assemblies to propose their demands and discuss them. This is anarchism.

It does not mean chaos. It means organising things from the bottom up, rather from the top down.
____________Reality Internet Personality

I wouldn't disagree that there is a small group of anarchist types (organizing true anarchists might be a bit difficult though). I guess the phrase 'core group' suggesting that they control the Occupy movement struck me as about the same level of paranoia that infuses folks who declare that all the violence in the Occupy groups is from government (or Wall Street) instigators. I suspect both explanations miss the mark.

I see that a lot of the Occupy groups have sent people to Oakland to try and put a lid on the core group of anarchists who saw Occupy as a way to do their thing and claimed the Occupy banner as a way to do their destruction. By now real Occupy people may out number the anarchists, but they haven't got rid of the anarchists and I don't think they can, considering it is Oakland.

Anarchists organizing society -- it is an interesting juxtaposition of words...

There is a small number of folks who look at various protest movements as an opportunity for violence. Seemingly the idea is violence for the sake of violence. It appears to be something focused on destructiveness. There was some evidence of this in the various 'anti-globalization' protests a few years back, and I saw a bit of this in Athens last summer as well.

The thing is, the frustration level for 'regular people' has gotten quite high in a lot of places for a number of reasons and it is possible to spin that frustration into violent places.

Anarchism is a form of organising society that quite literally means "without rulers". In other words they do not believe that one person or a small group of people should be in charge. There are many different forms of anarchism. The libertarians and a large part of the Republican party believes there should be no or little government. This is a form of anarchism.

As to "anarchists" that is the word they use to self describe, if press reports can be believed, same as in the WTO protests. Thug might be the word I would use.

Many groups label themselves as the very thing they are not so they seem "fair and balanced" to the world.

As to 99%, I see where there is a new stat out that the older generation has 47 times the wealth of the younger generation. The older generation likely knew someone who lived through the Great Depression. Coincidence?

Now teapublicans would march to the Battle Hymn of the Republic, something libertarians might find offensive.

OK -- but for the descriptive of 'thugs' I can see employing that to describe some of the big banks and what they do to the less fortunate -- it is all in manner of speaking.

Regarding statistics stating that (at least some) of the older generation have more assets -- that seems sort of self-evident. I certainly have more than 50 times the wealth that I did when I was 25 -- I'm now in my 60's. So I am not so sure that this tells us that much in the general scheme of things.

A more interesting question would be along the lines of, comparing the wealth someone who is 30 years now, to someone who was 30 years old 30 years ago, and factoring inflation, what is the ratio at the same age?

That's more of a complex question though, and complexity is sadly beyond the ken of most voters today it seems.

As to "anarchists" that is the word they use to self describe, if press reports can be believed, same as in the WTO protests. Thug might be the word I would use.

Many groups label themselves as the very thing they are not so they seem "fair and balanced" to the world.

As to 99%, I see where there is a new stat out that the older generation has 47 times the wealth of the younger generation. The older generation likely knew someone who lived through the Great Depression. Coincidence?

"American public need to rise and hang every billionare and millionare piece shits in america."

Fine idea there... Just go around and hang everyone who makes a billion. What about people like Warren Buffit and Bill Gates who are heads of the "Tax me More" movement but also will donate 90-99% of their wealth to charities around the world.

Second:

Is that really the solution to the problem? The problem is not actually the so called 1% and Multi-national corporations but actually the lack of legislation and governing of the market. One cannot blame the corporations for trying to be better than the other even though they use "questionable" lobbying and practices. One has to be pissed off with the government for not only letting this stuff happen but also playing too big of a part then it needs to.

The main problem with Occupy is that they seem to want to destroy their own movement. They have major health issues (as in nastiness..), and they seem to like to rape/murder their own. It's being targeted from within by sicko's who don't actually want to protest anything, but cause as much trouble as possible.

Besides all that, the seem to miss the whole point about how wealth distribution and killing capitalism won't work in a country this large. Look at Europe.. I know! They should all just move to Europe and get a taste of how awesome their ideas are. I vote to send them to Greece for 3 months.

The main problem with Occupy is that they seem to want to destroy their own movement. They have major health issues (as in nastiness..), and they seem to like to rape/murder their own. It's being targeted from within by sicko's who don't actually want to protest anything, but cause as much trouble as possible.

Besides all that, the seem to miss the whole point about how wealth distribution and killing capitalism won't work in a country this large. Look at Europe.. I know! They should all just move to Europe and get a taste of how awesome their ideas are. I vote to send them to Greece for 3 months.

Terry

If Greece had any sense or say in the matter they would default on the debt and leave the European union.

I am not sure how your comments about destruction of Capitalism and what is going on in Europe are linked. Could you explain in a little more detail please?